Last Status About This For Four Years

I can’t shake the urge to Leap over something today

Well, it is Leap Day, after all.  Happy Birthday to everyone who turns 1/4 of their age today! 

So today is one of those holidays that doesn't get as much corporate pandering as some of the others.  And why not?  People are instructed to buy all kinds of decorations and cards and candies and fireworks and pumpkins and trees and all sorts of other crap for other holidays that happen every year.  Leap Day comes along every 4 years (give or take a millennium) and it gets little more attention than a reminder not to turn your calendar over to March just yet.  How very sad for Leap Day.

I'm Right, But I Don't Know Why

“There is a lot of reasons to…”  Grammatically correct or not?  Discuss

Seems pretty obvious that it's not correct.  Why is this even a discussion?

It's not so much that I'm concerned with which whether this is correct or not.  Obviously, most people would "correctly" say "There ARE a lot of reasons to..." given that 'reasons' is a plural countable noun.  Therefore, the above statement would be considered grammatically incorrect...I'm just searching for the correct explanation as to WHY this is the way that it is.  Here's what I mean:

My issue stems from the grammatical differentiation between quantifiers and collective nouns.  The way I see it, "of reasons" could be considered a prepositional phrase, making the object of the sentence the singular collective noun "Lot" as in "There is a lot."  The addition of "of reasons" merely described the Lot, thus making the use of a singular predicate form "Is" correct.  This would be using the word "Lot" as a collective noun similar to talking about a flock of geese.  You would (correctly) say "There IS a flock of geese outside my window."  In that case, "Flock" is the singular object of the verb, therefore, the singular verb form "is" would be appropriate.  

All that said, the phrase "A lot of" is considered a part of speech called a "Quantifier," which when looking at sentence structure is a complete add-on.  In that case, the object of the predicate in the above example would be the plural noun "Reasons," making the proper verb form the plural "Are."  As in "There ARE reasons."  You add in the quantifier "a lot of" and you get "There are a lot of reasons..."  

I'm okay with this.  

What I'm not okay with is any explanation that's available for why a flock of geese is different from a lot of reasons.  Sure, there are grammar lesson websites on the internetz, and I've scoured a couple of them looking for a clear-cut answer, but I get nothing.  I more or less get "this is the way it is, so say it this way," and that's the end of it. 

My old statistics professor used to say, "People in most parts of the world speak broken English, except the United States where it's been ground into a fine powder."  I'm not always surprised because English can be really confusing sometimes. 

No Smoothies Until Further Notice

I never liked that blender anyway

Is the blender in any way related to The Famed Toaster Of Hades?

I don't think so, but I wouldn't be surprised.  Here's my story:

Awe geeze...we have to sit through a story now?  

Not long ago, I decided that I was going to start making smoothies.  This had nothing to do with laughing every time I hear the word "smoothies" because of how my old home-ec teacher used to pronounce "SMIEWthies," although, I'll admit that is not lost in the thought process.  In order to do this, I needed the ice maker to work on my fridge (It no longer does...I should try to fix that at some point, I guess) and I needed a blender.  I went to some store somewhere and picked out what looked like a nice blender with features and stuff, that happened to match the decor of my kitchen.  Seemed like a win-win.

I enjoyed the occasional smoothie with whatever fruit was available locally, experimenting with different flavors to mixed results (Peach and blueberry...awwe yeah!).  The problem was often the blender.  It wasn't particularly adept at the initial blending part when there were still ice cubes involved.  It would create a pocket of air around the blades into which nothing would fall to be blended until I turned the thing off, shook it around or shoved a spoon down in there to get things loosened up.  After a couple tries at this, the smoothie would usually get the idea and blend up, afterwards, I would enjoy a refreshing fruity beverage. 

That is until recently, when there was an uncharacteristically loud cracking sound when mixing up a smoothie.  Blending ice is never without its crunches, but this was unusual.  Also, afterward, the blender motor would spin, but the blades went nowhere.  I pull the jar off the blender motor to discover the piece that connects the blade mechanism to the motor's drive shaft in three pieces underneath.  Come to think of it, this is not unlike what happened to my lawnmower last summer, and the concepts are strangely similar.  Either way, this cheap plastic thing that is pretty integral to the blending process and thus, you'd think would be made of something a little sturdier, is shot.  I needed a replacement.  I do the usual internetz thing looking up the model number of my blender and what websites are available that sell spare blender parts...bupkis.  Unphased, I locate the owner's manual (oh yeah...I had the owner's manual.  Don't think I ever opened it until just now, but I still had it) and discover the customer service phone number for the company.  Here's where it gets fun.

The large, faceless automatonic company which produced my blender is none other than General Electric.  Remember that name, kids.  I call up the number and speak with a reasonably nice representative who looks up the model number of my blender and informs me that they do not sell any spare parts for that blender.  I ask about a whole replacement blade mechanism or full jar.  Nope...they can do roughly nothing to help me.  I say "roughly" because what they can do is take my order for a whole new blender and ship it to me.  I explained to the reasonably nice representative that I would not be placing an order that day.  In fact, my exact words were more along the lines of "If I have to buy a whole new blender because you can't replace a cheap plastic part, I'll let you guess what brand of blender I'm NOT buying." 

So...to the fine folks at General Electric who make disposable blenders, you are officially On Notice.  (Again, I coined that phrase LONG before Colbert, but have no documentation to back that up.)  Your blenders are bad and you should feel bad.  

And to all of you loyal readers out there...anyone have any suggestions for a good quality blender that will make smoothies, not fall apart, comes in satin silver, and won't break the bank?  I'm all ears.   

I Can't Believe Nobody Said Something

Why is Schroeder from “Peanuts” playing a Bach piece in the insurance commercial?


It's a piano recital.  So he's playing piano.  It's kinda what he does.


My issue, of course, is not the fact that he's playing piano, but merely the fact that he's playing Bach on the piano.  Everyone knows that, to a fault,  his favorite composer is Beethoven.  If he's playing a piano piece at a filled concert hall, he should be playing Beethoven, not Bach.  No explanation you can provide me for this oversight is going to be enough to convince me that this piece was the proper choice.  

Incidentally, the piece he's playing is Bach's Italian Concerto in F Minor.  You want proof?  Here you go:


The Commercial


and


The Bach

I'm Never Watching That Channel Again...Until Next Season

Newest candidate for “Worst Thing Ever”:  Fox Sports’ KidKaster

Yeah...that's right up there with the Holocaust, I'm sure.  

As many of you are aware, the bane of my existence is the Children's Choir.  While pretty much no Children's Choir can match This Guy when it comes to lousy singing, the regularity with which they're going to be awful is pretty alarming.  

Seriously, people.  DO NOT CLICK THAT LINK.  Your ears will thank you, and not explode.  

Where's the fun in that?

 

I'm a humanitarian.  I can't, in good conscience, subject people to that.  That guy thinks he's famous for his singing? 

I guess that's beside the point.  I was introduced to a new terrible thing not long ago while watching a hockey game.  Fox Sports brought out a special guest commentator during the second period...a grade school kid whose name was picked out of a hat.  The purpose for the kid being there was to provide one-word answers to commentator's attempts at leading questions, leaving plenty of dead air while trying to coax audio from the non-forthcoming kid.  Meanwhile, there was a hockey game going on in the background which was being ignored while we learned what the kid's teacher's name was and if he liked math class.  

I don't know which Fox Sports studio exec's kid wanted to be on TV, but there can be no other explanation for this sort of thing going on.  The commentators are paid professionals for a reason (With the possible exception of the Bruins' and Penguin's commentators.  Yeah, I'm looking at you, Jack Edwards.)  They've learned how to talk about the intricacies of the game while talking about and identifying players at break-neck speed, all without any gaps or dead air, while remaining interesting.  To subject these professionals to babysitting and the torture of trying to make a mush-mouthed grade school kid into good TV seems unfair to them.  The result was pretty inhumane to the rest of us. 

Very Convenient

My new phone book lasted about 5 hours

Showing off your strongman skills again?  Something just doesn't seem right about that for some reason.

Sadly, no.  The phone book is still at least reasonably intact wherever it may be.   

See, the phone company still feels the need to deliver phone books to everyone.  The problem with this, of course, is that nobody uses phone books anymore.  That's what the internets are for.  Most smartphones will even dial a number for you when you find one on a website.  Combine that with the fact that everyone's cell phone is unlisted, and there is precious little information that can be gleaned from a phone book that can't be found through other easier means.  By "precious little," I of course mean "none."  

Yet, there it was on my doorstep yesterday afternoon as I came home from work.  500-some pages of dead tree that would make for a good paperweight but for the fact that it's too big and made of paper itself.  I have no other use for the phone book.  Fortunately, the phone company had the good sense to deliver the phone books on garbage day!  The thing made it as far as 10 feet into the garage where it was promptly placed in the recycling bin.  The bin was at the curb 5 hours later waiting to be picked up.  Seems like a bit of a waste, but I don't feel bad about it because had I brought it inside, it would have taken up room on my desk for about a year until the next phone book arrived and met the same end.  I merely sped up the process.  Also, I recycled...that's good, right? 

Vote Washington!

I doubt George Washington could have gotten himself elected in 2012

Well, he has been dead for 213 years.  Pretty well limits his campaign speeches.  

More importantly, I'm referring to the amount that the political landscape has changed since Washington was elected unanimously.  Sure, he was a respected military leader and businessman, not to mention one of America's greatest presidents, but Washington has some flaws that would have been relentlessly attacked by today's media, making enough people hate him so that he would be unelectable.  

First, there's the fact that he wasn't a member of a politcal party.  You can be as popular and whimsical and rich as you want (Just ask Ross Perot), but if you don't have the full backing of one of two groups of people (Democrats or Republicans), you have no chance of getting elected.  The best ever performance of a third-party candidate in a presidential election?  Theodore Roosevelt, running under the "Bull Moose Party" in 1912, to a whopping 27.4% of the popular vote.  That's just not getting it done, folks. 

One of the biggest issues in this year's election is how rich politicians are out of touch with the rest of the people in the country.  (The whole 99% debate)  This is one of the sticking points in Mitt Romney's campaign...the fact that he's not worried about the poor, and thinks that handing somebody 50 bucks out of his wallet at a photo op somehow cures all of a person's financial woes.  I'm not making that up.  Well, should Romney secure himself the White House, at a net worth somewhere in the neighborhood of $200Million, he would be only the second richest president in US history.  Who was the first, you may ask?  None other than George Washington, who owned over 8000 acres of prime farmland (back when farming was profitable) and had a net worth of well over $500Million. 

Oh yeah...George Washington owned slaves.  Sure, that was socially acceptable back then, but today's political action committees sure aren't going to let that ruin a perfectly good attack ad slamming Washington for something that would certainly be a human rights violations today.  (Remember the Clinton didn't inhale thing?)

Washington proclaimed the United States to be neutral in times of European wars, something which would be branded as weakness today.  Washington raised taxes...in the sense that there really was no government to collect taxes before Washington created it.  That's a cardinal sin in today's government.  Those taxes went to support bigger government in the form of infrastructure improvements, commerce improvements, military spending, you name it.  If people had health insurance back then, you can bet Washington would have supported that, too.  

So you see...even though we all remember George Washington as a great president, it's important to note that if he had been alive today, he wouldn't have even gotten the chance to become president.  The election system would have done away with him too quickly, leaving only a hollow shell of a party windbag for the voters to pick.  It's a little sad.  Think about that during the next presidential debate. 

Really Sorry

Once again, we allow Nicolas Cage to befoul cinema.  This really should stop

Sounds like Jeremy's all set to review "Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance" without having actually bothered to watch the film.  This should be helpful and informative.

I'm not the only one who sees it.  Multiple websites exist that deal with the tragedy that is Nicolas Cage Acting.  There are also rumors that he's a vampire, but that's entirely beside the point. 

Today's Sametime Status deals with today's release of the latest deuce dropped on moviegoers everywhere by Nic, "Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance."  Normally, one expects a sequel to be made when a movie is good and deserves more.  Such is obviously not the case lately, with just about every movie that makes money earning its way back to the silver screen.  The original Ghost Rider film took in around $115M at the box office despite pulling in a whopping 26% Tomatometer, allowing some jerk of a movie executive somewhere to unleash more Cage.  You'll be pleased to know that the sequel did almost as well, currently riding a wave of positive reviews to a crowd-pleasing 12% Tomatometer.  Here are what some critics are saying about this mess:

• "A movie made by morons for morons and the only thing it will leave viewers with is a desperate need for an aspirin"
  - Peter Sobczynski
• "Shattering ineptitude"
  Devin Faraci
• "'Let's just say good judgment's not my forte,' quips Cage at one point, although the line can also be applied in a broader sense."
  Robbie Collin

Sounds like a great time at the flickershows to me!  Ugh.

Also...seriously, people?  The guy is devil's bounty hunter, riding around on a motorcycle...fine.  When he's really putting his thing down, he's entirely on fire , okay.  Buy a guy who spends his afterlife on fire whose name in regular life is Johnny Blaze?!  Come on! 

I'm begging you, Hollywood.  Stop this!  Whatever we did to offend you, we're sorry. 

This has been another edition of Jeremy Is In The Theatre.

Refreshing, Either Way

Arnold Palmer:  Better as a Golfer or a Beverage?  Discuss

Beverage?

Is that a question or a tentative answer?

Some of both, I'm sure.


Alright then.  Arnold Palmer is a professional golfer who has amassed 62 PGA tour wins over his lengthy career....a mere 20 PGA wins behind record-holder Sam Snead.    Everyone knows this.

Arnold Palmer is also a refreshing beverage, as some of you may be aware.  It's quite tasty, if not imaginative.  An official Arnold Palmer consists of 1/2 iced tea and 1/2 lemonade.  Not much of a creative stretch there, considering a substantial amount of iced tea found in the United States includes lemon, be in in the form of juice, lemonade, or actual pieces of lemon.  As a golfer, I imagine Arnold Palmer was more creative than this. 

While nobody knows the real story of how the drink came to be widely known by that name, the refreshing beverage will live on long after Arnold's golf career.  Which is more important in a legacy?  History or longevity?  It's an interesting dilemma. 

This Chick Is Toast

I’m more amused than I should be about making a “Ghostbusters” reference to someone who probably didn’t get it

You have dogs and cats living together?

  

Nope.  As sad as it is, we live in an era where there are a lot of new movies coming out and not enough people are aware of the classics, nor are able to devote enough time to viewing them.  This is a problem, because fine cinematic masterpieces that are endlessly quotable are recognized less and less, and the countless pop-culture references you can make to the movie basically cease being pop-culture.  

Back in the 1940's, I imagine a world where hundreds upon hundreds of people would utter the phrase "Here's lookin' at you, kid."  Now, the phrase not only seems like a mere old-timey phrase, but most people will recognize that it merely came from an old movie, but will have no chance of coming up with "Casablanca."  Bogey is sad.  Bogey is even more sad because not enough people know who "Bogey" was, even in a paragraph about "Casablanca."

I had the experience not long ago where an intern where I work had never seen the movie "Ghostbusters."  This is little short of a criminal offense to society, punishable by a screening marathon of the Twilight series, followed by a good 12 hours of Nicolas Cage films.  I firmly believe I had a similar experience at a restaurant not long ago.

I was out with some friends after an evening of volleyball, towards the end of a late meal/snack.  The waitress, who I'm assuming was a student at one of the local colleges comes around and asks me if I would like another beverage.  Not entirely sure how much longer everyone was going to stick around, I glance around the table and ask to nobody in particular, "Do I?"  The response quickly came, "Yes, have some."  Without a second thought, I turned back to the waitress and echoed, "Yes, have some."  Everyone should instantly recognize this as the exchange between Egon, Louis (Vince), and Janine in the Ghostbusters headquarters, after Louis had become possessed by the Keymaster of Gozer.  I'm pretty sure the amusement of the more recent exchange was completely and hopelessly lost on the poor waitress.  

Whose fault is it that college students in this day and age haven't seen Ghostbusters?  I blame society.  So straighten up, people!  Pop culture is in danger, and we can only save it if we cross the streams. 

Scary Times Ahoy

Nobody worry.  My computer is okay 


Oh good...we were all concerned.  Is there a more sarcastic font I can use on the Blag here?


Believe it or not, there was real concern for me this morning when my computer wouldn't start up.  I plugged it in like always, pressed the power button, and it started to boot up...


Losing interest in your story, Jeremy.


 ...but then it just shut down.  The whole process lasted about 3 seconds in between start-up and cold, dark nothingness.  The more frightening part was that it would immediately try to start up again, having a mind of its own, powering up by force of sheer will, only to collapse in on itself once again. 

Fortunately for us all, I'm something of a decent user of computers.  It ended up being one of those situations where I unplugged the laptop, pulled the battery out, held the power button for a while to kill any remains of power the thing once had, then reassemble and try again.  As you've probably guessed by now, I fixed it, and the day was saved.  You may thank me at your convenience. 

It's A Really Long Time

If it kills germs on contact, why do I have to rinse for 60 seconds?

 Because that's what the instructions say you need to do.  Don't question antiseptic authority!  


So how do I maintain good dental hygiene without selling out to The Man?  It really seems hypocritical of them to tell me that something works on contact if I have to use it for more than one second.  Maybe they're assuming I'm an idiot who doesn't know how to swish something around my mouth so it contacts all surfaces.  But that's the problem...I'm not an idiot, and I actually have awareness of my surroundings as well as my mouth.  I believe I'm fully capable of determining when antiseptic has come into contact with all of my teeth and gums.  I believe I'm fully capable of determining when to spit the stuff out rather than relying on some arbitrarily defined time that's printed on the bottle.  The alternative is just scary...where they've lied to us and it actually takes antiseptic 60 seconds to kill germs and those of us who don't rigidly adhere to that time have effectively been doing nothing this whole time.  Which is it, antiseptic company?! 

I Occasionally Read "Art Of Trolling"

Today’s Sametime Status is hidden.  Press Alt+F4 to read

 It's a good one, too.  Totally worth it. 

Maybe A SUPER JerK?

Ahmad Bradshaw is a jerk.  He owes me $2.50

 I'm sure he didn't mean anything.  He was only...wait...what did he do anyway?

He scored a touchdown in the Super Bowl.

Wow...yeah.  I can see how you'd be upset about a football player trying his best to win a football game.  You want to call out your garbage collector for actually emptying the can every week?  

More specifically...the way in which he scored the touchdown effectively cost me a prop bet at the Super Bowl party I went to.  Here's how things went downhill:

Instead of doing the usual "Boxes" thing, the organizers of the party I attended put forth a series of proposition bets that we could wager on.  Selections included the number of passing yards for a particular quarterback, the number of commercials that include an animal (I called Bunk on this one repeatedly, as it was announced that Muppets did not count as animals, but the Coca-Cola polar bears did...but I lost this bet by such a wide margin, it stopped being worth it) and the total number of quarterback sacks in the game.  With less than 2 minutes left in the game, the teams were sitting on a collective 4 sacks, which was exactly what I picked in the pool, so stood to win that share of the kitty.  That share being $5, but somebody else also had 4, so I would have had to split it.  With exactly 57 seconds left in the game, Ahmad Bradshaw realizes he can score an easy touchdown, but in the interest of he team, he wisely decides to stop at the 1-yard line to run out the clock.  This was the right thing to do...run out the clock, kick the game-winning field goal with 1 second left and hit the Gatorade showers.  Except for the fact that he forgot how to fall down and ended up falling buttocks over tea kettle into the endzone...accidentally scoring a touchdown, and leaving almost a minute left on the clock for an attempted miraculous comeback by one of like three quarterbacks in the league capable of doing just that.  By selfishly scoring a touchdown, he allowed New England one last kick at the can.  

On that ensuing drive (which we all know by now ended fruitlessly) Tom Brady was sacked by the Giants defense, resulting in a game total 5 sacks, and more importantly, no prop bet win for Jeremy.  The money went to another party guest.  New England never should have gotten the ball again, so there never should have been the opportunity for that last sack.  Ahmad Bradshaw caused that sack by not falling down properly.  The way I see it, he cost me my winnings.  I anxiously await remittance. 

Take That, "The Man"!

I like when things cost $3.59.  I pay with a 20

 Interesting...how often does that happen?

Not very often.  I get the 59 cents portion of it, but sadly, not so much the full $3.59.  

So why is $3.59 so special?

Because it allows me to get full value from my cashier experience.  

Lately, cashiers have it easy.  Most of the time, the customer is doing all the work themselves, what with swiping their own credit card, typing in their own pin number, and picking up their own receipt.  In some places (particularly grocery stores and large, autonomous home improvement stores) they've done away with the cashier entirely, and I have to scan all my own stuff and bag it, then pay and collect my receipt.  Of course, this process goes perfectly about 17% of the time.  The remainder of the times, and I don't feel like doing the math, somebody has to come over and fix the machine before I can continue.  This is annoying.  

So, I like to make sure that cashiers are doing as much as possible while they're working.  Everybody wins.  They don't get bored, and I get to have my fun.

What's so fun about that?

Simple!  If I pay for a $3.59 tab with a 20-dollar bill, I get $16.41 in change.  This is most commonly manifested as one 10-dollar bill, one 5-dollar bill, one 1-dollar bill, one quarter, one dime, one nickel, and one penny.  The cashier will have to go through every compartment of their drawer to give me the minimum amount of change.  It's a minor victory, but a victory nonetheless. 

We're Getting Hosed

How many fixin’s are there?

Probably quite a few.  Why?

Well, I've recently become concerned with (read: happened to notice a sign) making sure I'm getting proper value for my money when presented with a food item that claims to have "All the fixin's."  Before you start emailing me, I believe that is the proper spelling and punctuation, given that "fixin'" is an abbreviated form of "fixing," so therefore the apostrophe should stay.  

I find it very difficult to believe that any one place can indeed provide "all the fixin's" for that partcular item, be it a hot dog, hamburger, pizza, what have you.  The sheer variety of things I can come up with just off the top of my head make it nearly impossible, given the space constraints that come along with providing that service.  I can also think of some extraordinary items that may be considered fixin's that are only included in isolated places...such as pineapple or mango chutney (actually things I've seen).  The instant you don't offer one of those items, your claim of "All the fixin's" goes out the window.  You've lied to me!  Jerk.